The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.(August 2013)

Summer learning loss is the loss in academic skills and knowledge over the course of summer vacation. The loss in learning varies across grade level, subject matter, and family income. A common finding across numerous studies is that on average, students score lower on standardized tests at the end of the summer than they do at the beginning of summer (on the same test). Summer loss for all students is estimated to be equal to about 1 month (Cooper 1996), but this varies across subject matter:

Reading- Varies across SES. Low income students generally lose about 2 months of reading achievement. Middle income students experience slight gains in reading performances.

For over a century, scholars have recognized that summer vacation is a period when students’ rate of academic development declines relative to the school year. All children lose academic skills during the summer months, and family socioeconomic status (SES) is highly correlated to the level of academic growth or decline in the summer months. Two-thirds of the academic achievement gap in reading and language found among high school students has been explained through the learning loss that occurs during the summer months of the primary school years.[1]

Contents

Throughout the 20th century, numerous studies examined general learning loss among all students during the summer months. A meta-analysis of 39 studies conducted since 1978 found that in the absence of school, all students score lower on standardized math tests at the end of the summer as compared to their performance on the same tests at the beginning of summer.[2] This loss was most acute in factual and procedural learning such as mathematical computation, where an average setback of more than two months of grade-level equivalency was observed among both middle- and lower-class students. In reading and language, however, substantial differences were found between middle- and lower-class students. Whereas middle-class students showed a nonsignificant gain in reading scores, lower-class students showed a significant loss that represented a gap of about three months of grade-level equivalent reading skills between middle- and lower-class students.

These results are consistent with other researcher's findings that a family’s socioeconomic status affects children’s achievement scores almost exclusively when school is closed. Barbara Heyns’ 1978 landmark study of 2,978 6th and 7th graders in the Atlanta city public schools was the first thorough investigation of summer learning.[3] Heyns found that while poor children and black children came close to keeping up with middle-class children in cognitive growth when school was in session, they lagged far behind during the summer.

Researchers Doris Entwistle and Karl Alexander extended Barbara Heyns’ line of research through the Beginning School Study (BSS) in 1982. BSS compared the school-year and summer achievement gains of 790 youth across 20 of Baltimore’s public schools from the beginning of first grade in 1982 through the end of elementary school. The study also tracked these students’s progress through high school and college. They found that in year nine, the low-socioeconomic status (SES) group’s Reading Comprehension average lagged 73 points behind the high-SES group’s on the California Achievement Test (CAT-V).[4] About a third of the 73 points difference (27 points) was in place when the students started first grade. After the first grade, the low-SES students fall farther behind each year, with the gap reaching a plateau of around 70 points in the 5th grade. The remaining two-thirds of the 73 point gap accumulate over the course of the elementary and middle school years, with a staggering 48.5 points being attributed to the cumulative summer learning gap from the five elementary years. As these data show, virtually the entire achievement gap reflects differences between low-SES and high-SES students’ home environments, with cognitive gains during the school year being relatively equal between both groups.

Researchers from The Ohio State University extended summer learning gap research further by conducting a national study of 17,000 kindergarten and first grade children from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. The authors confirmed earlier findings of an unequal starting point, showing that a standard deviation’s advantage in SES predicts a 1.77 month advantage in initial reading skill on the first day of kindergarten.[5] The authors also confirmed that the SES achievement gap continues to grow after schooling starts, with summer learning accounting for the vast majority of the difference. While the average kindergarten learning rate was 1.65 test points per month, a standard deviation’s advantage in SES predicted a relative gain of 0.16 points per month during summer, 0.07 points per month during kindergarten, and 0.05 points per month during first grade.

The United States has a K-12 public school enrollment roughly 48 million, of which only 9.2 percent attend summer school programs.[6] These summer school programs typically differ significantly from the regular school program in terms of curriculum, goals, and rigor. Because summer school programs are voluntary, self-selection also confounds the effects of attending. Due to these differences, most summer school programs have not been effective in reducing the achievement gap between low-SES and high-SES youth, and in some cases actually exacerbate the gaps. For those low-SES students who do not have access to high quality summer learning opportunities, the personal impact is significant.

The early learning gap among low-SES students, which is predominantly driven by summer learning loss in the elementary school years, casts a long achievement shadow. When compared to high-SES youth, the low-SES youth are “more likely to enter adulthood without high school certification (36 percent versus 3 percent at age twenty-two) and less likely to attend a four-year college (7 percent versus 59 percent, also at age twenty-two)."[7] The college wage premium doubled from 1967 to 1997, while the dropout penalty similarly doubled.[8] In an economy that is increasingly unaccommodating of low-skill workers, joblessness and declining wages are related to growth in ghetto poverty.[9] In characterizing the U.S. poverty population, John Iceland revealed that “poor African-American children are less likely to escape poverty than others – 1 in 3 were still poor at ages 25 to 27, as compared to 1 in 12 white children." [10] While no consensus has been reached on a model to explain this lack of mobility, some research has provided the strongest support for the economic resources model, “where parents’ lack of money and time hinders the ability to invest in children’s education." The correlation between SES and educational attainment thus has significant implications for the likelihood of low-SES children escaping poverty.

Cooper’s (1996) study (as cited in Graham, McNamara and VanLankveld, 2011, pg.575) indicates that the gap in the learning cycle which occurs during summer vacation is more prominent for children that are less advantaged. Children who are the most susceptible are those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, ethnic minorities and students with exceptionalities ( Graham, 2011; Guryan & Kim, 2010; & Kim, 2006). Further, it is predominantly literacy related skills that are affected the most (Graham,2011).

In a study conducted by Kim (2006) an intervention was designed to provide children with effective summer learning experiences and to improve the reading abilities of minority student’s and struggling readers. The results of the study indicate that the most significant reading gains occurred for disadvantaged students while students from middle to high socio-economic upbringings remained stable on standardized measures of reading (Kim, 2006). Such findings are also consistent with a recent review by Guryan and Kim (2010) whereby a summer reading intervention was implemented for low-income Latino children. Low-income parents often lack the resources to provide children with sufficient reading materials needed to reinforce important literacy skills. Further children who are English language learners need additional exposure to print material, which may be difficult for children in homes where English is not the native language (Guryan and Kim, 2010).

The Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario is a not for profit organization that provides support programs and services to children and families living with learning disabilities in many communities. A formal diagnosis is not required to access support. Please click the following link to learn more about some of the programs offered. http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3258795

The majority of the literature which examines the effects of the summer learning loss lends to the importance of involving families in the implementation of summer reading programs. Graham, McNamara and Van Lankveld (2011) conducted a summer literacy program to address specific literacy needs of young children which also required the involvement of caregivers in program delivery. Children as well as caregivers attended literacy skill building workshops where instructional sessions were tailored towards both children and parents, as well as include a collaborative component. Based on the analysis of pre-test and post-test data collected during the study, children demonstrated significant improvements in developing their literacy skills (Graham, 2011).

Timmons (2008) also identifies the importance of providing literacy education to parents and children, while also bringing them together to work collaboratively in group situations. The active involvement of caregivers in their child’s educational career only enhances academic achievement, as research indicates the significant influence that family involvement has on successful student outcomes (Timmons, 2008). Effective summer reading programs provide families with meaningful strategies and resources that can be carried over and implemented in their home, which ensures continuity of summer reading programs throughout year, after the intervention has concluded (Timmons, 2008).

When formal schooling was first established, the school calendar fit the needs of a particular community. When families became more mobile, the school calendar was standardized. The current 9-month calendar that most schools operate on was established when 85% of Americans (and students) were involved in agriculture, and when climate control did not exist in school buildings. In today's United States, only about 3% of Americans are engaged in agriculture. Also, most schools have air conditioning, making it possible for students to be there in the hotter months. [1][dead link][citation needed]

^Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., & Olson, L. 2000. “Summer Learning and Home Environment.” In R. Kahlenberg Ed., A Notion at Risk: Preserving Public Education as an Engine for Social Mobility pp. 9-30. New York: Century Foundation Press.